and while you're there nominate someone you think should be a cnn 2016 hero. if you missed any of our brooklyn democratic debate, you can see the whole thing starting right now. good night. [ applause ] >> i want to begin with a question that goes right to the heart of which one of you should be the democratic presidential nominee. senator sanders, in the last week you've raised questions about the secretary's qualifications to be president. you accused her of having a credibility gap. so let me ask you -- do you believe that secretary clinton has the judgment to be

president. >> i've known secretary clinton how long? 25 years. we worked together in the senate, and i said that response to the kind of attacks we were getting from the clinton campaign. "the washington post" headlines says clinton campaign says sanders is unqualified. that's what the surrogates were saying. does secretary clinton have the experience and intelligence to be a president? of course, she does, but i do question -- but i do question her judgment. i question a judgment which voted for the war in iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, voted for virtually every disastrous trade agreement which cost us millions of decent paying jobs, and i question her judgment about running super pacs which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests, including $15 million from wall street. i don't believe that that is the kind of judgment we need to be

the kind of president we need. >> secretary clinton? >> well, it is true that now that the spotlight is pretty bright in new york some things have been said, and senator sanders did call me unqualified. i've been called a lot of things in my life. that was a first. then he did say that he had to question my judgment. well, the people of new york voted for me twice to be their senator from new york, and president obama trusted my judgment enough to ask me to be secretary of state for the united states. so, look, we have disagreements on policy. there's no doubt about it. but if you go and read -- which i hope all of you will before tuesday -- senator sanders' long interview with "the new york daily news" talk about judgment and talk about the kinds of problems he had answering questions about even his core

issue -- breaking up the banks. when asked, he could not explain how that would be done, and when asked about a number of foreign policy issues, he could not answer about afghanistan, about israel, about counter-terrorism, except to say if he had some paper in front of him, maybe he could. i think you need to have the judgment on day one to be both president and commander in chief. >> senator. >> let's talk about judgment. and let us talk about the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country. i led the opposition to that war. secretary clinton voted for it. let's talk about judgment. let's talk about super pacs and

501-c-4s, money is completely undisclosed. where does the money come from? do we really feel confident about a candidate saying she's going to bring change in america, when she is so dependent on big money interests? i don't think so. >> let me just say -- >> wolf -- >> secretary, let him finish. >> okay. >> thirdly, we have got to understand that in america we should be thinking big, not small. >> thank you. >> we need to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people. that's my view. >> thank you, senator. secretary. >> well, make no mistake about it, this is not just an attack on me. it's an attack on president obama.

you know, let me tell you why. you may not like the answer, but i'll tell you why. president obama had a super pac when he ran. president obama took tens of millions from contributors, and president obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign dodd/frank, the toughest regulations on wall street in many a year. so this is -- this is a phony -- this is a phony attack that is designed to raise questions when there is no evidence or support to undergird the insinuations that he is putting forward in these attacks. >> thank you, secretary. we're going to continue on this, but i want dana bash to continue with the questioning. >> secretary clinton, the government announced yesterday that five of the biggest banks on wall street have failed to develop plans to dismantle themselves in the event of another financial crisis.

this is the second time in two years those banks neglected to come up with credible plans. so as president, would you call on regulators to start the process of breaking up these banks? something that the law not only allows, but actually explicitly encourages? >> absolutely. this is what i've been saying for the past year. no bank is too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail. i've been talking about what we should be doing under dodd/frank. i'm glad senator sanders is now joining in talking about dodd/frank, because dodd/frank sets forth the aprop that needs to be taken. i will appoint regulators tough enough and ready enough to break up any bank that fails the test in dodd/frank. if they're a grave risk or if they fail the other, which is

the living wills, which is what you're referring to, is inadequate. let's look at what is at stake here. we can never let wall street wreck main street again. i have been standing up continuously and saying we have the law, we've got to execute under it. i would stand up immediately to break up any financial institution but i go further because i want the law to extend to those that are the shadow banking industry, the big insurance companies, the hedge funds, something i have been arguing for for a long time. >> thank you, secretary. senator sanders, you were recently asked what you would replace the big wall street banking with if you could break them up, you said, quote, that's their decision. why would you trust the banks to restructure themselves -- >> first, dana -- >> when you said the whole

business model was fraudulent. >> let's start with the basic premise. a few days ago goldman sachs formally reached a settlement with the united states government for $5 billion. what goldman sachs acknowledged was essentially they were fraudulently selling packages of subprime loans. other banks did the same. i don't need dodd-frank now to tell me that we have got to break up these bank, a, because they're based on fraudulent principles, and b, because when you have six financial institutions that have assets equivalent to 58% of the gdp of

this country, they were just too big, too much concentration of wealth and power. >> but senator -- >> the point is we have got to break them up so they do not pose a systemic risk and so that we have a vibrant economy with a competitive financial system. >> but senator, you didn't answer the specific question, which is not just about about breaking up the banks, but why allow the banks to do it themselves? >> because i'm not sure that the government should say is you are too big to fail, you've got to be a certain size, and then the banks themselves can figure out what they want to sell off. i don't know that it's appropriate for the department of treasury to be making those decisions. what we need is to make sure that they are safe. >> dana, you know -- i love being in brooklyn. this is great. dana, let me add here that there are two ways to go at this under dodd-frank, which is after all

the law we passed under president obama, and i'm proud that barney frank, one of the authors, has endorsed me. what i have said continuously is yes, sometimes the government may have to order certain actions, sometimes the government can permit the institution themselves to take those actions. that has to be the judgment of the regulators, but there's another element to this. i believe strongly that executives of any of these organizations should be financially penalized if there is a settlement. they should have to pay up through compensation or bonuses. we have to go after not just the big giant institution. we have to go after the people who are making the decisions in the institutions. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> and hold them accountable as well. senator sanders, you have consistently criticized secretary clinton for accepting money from wall street. can you name one decision that she made as senator that shows

that she favored banks because of the money she received? >> sure. sure. the obvious decision is when the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior of wall street brought this country into the worst economic downturn since the great recession, the great depression of the '30s, when millions of people lost their jobs, homes and life savings, the obvious response to that is you've got a bunch of fraudulent operators, and that they have got to be broken up. that was my view way back, and i introduced legislation to do that. now, secretary clinton was busy giving speeches to goldman sachs for $225,000 a speech. so the proper response -- the proper response in my view is we

should break them up. that's what my legislation does. >> well, as you can tell, dana, he cannot come up with any example, because there is no example. and it is -- it is important -- it is important -- it's always important -- it may be inconvenient, but it's always important to get the facts straight. i stood up against the behaviors of the banks when i was a senator. i called them out on their mortgage behavior. i also was very willing to speak out against some of the special privileges they had under the tax code. when i went to the secretary of state office, the president -- president obama led the effort to pass the dodd-frank bill. that is the law. now, this is our ninth debate. in the prior eight debates, i have said we have a law. you don't just say we're upset about this. i'm upset about it.

you don't just say go break them up. you have a law because we are a nation of laws. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> i support dodd-frank, but i've consistently said that's not enough. we've got to include the shadow banking sector. >> thank you, secretary. senator sanders. >> senator clinton called them out. my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. and was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements? they must have been very, very upset by what you did. look, here is the difference and here is the clear difference. these banks in my view have too much power. they have shown themselves to be fraudulent organizations

endangering the well being of our economy. if elected president, i will break them up. we have legislation to do that, end of discussion. >> secretary clinton, if i may, senator sanders keeps bringing up the speeches you gave to goldman sachs. you've said you don't want to release the transcripts, until everybody does it, but if there's nothing in those speeches that would change voters' minds, why not release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed? >> you know, first of all -- first of all, there isn't an issue. when i was in public service serving as the senator from new york, i did stand up to the banks. i did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused. i'm the only one on this stage who did not vote to deregulate swaps and derivatives, as senator sanders did, which led to a lot of the problems that we

had with lehman brothers. now, if you're going to look at the problems that actually caused the great recession, you've got to look at the whole picture. it was a giant insurance company, aig. it was an investment bank, lehman brothers. it was mortgage companies like countrywide. i'm not saying that senator sanders did something under toward when he voted to deregulate -- >> madam secretary -- >> but the fact is he did. that contributed to the collapse of lehman brothers. >> what about -- >> and started the cascade -- >> hold it, hold it. >> senator sanders, one second, please. secretary clinton, the question was about the transcripts of the speeches to goldman sachs. why not release them? >> i have said, look -- there are certain expectations when you run for president. this is a new one, and i've said, if everybody agrees to do it, because there are speeches for money on the other side. i know that.

i will tell you this -- there is a long-standing expectation that everybody running release their tax returns, and you can go -- you can go to my website and see eight years of tax returns, and i've released 30 years of tax returns, and i think every candidate, including senator sanders and donald trump, should do the same. >> secretary clinton, we're going to get to the tax returns later, but just to put a button on this. you're running now for the democratic nomination. it is your democratic opponent and many democratic voters who want to see those transcripts. it's not about the republicans at this point. >> you know, let's set the same standard for everybody. when everybody does it, okay, i will do it, but let's set and expect the same standard on tax returns. everybody does it, and then we move forward. thank you. >> well, let me respond. secretary clinton, you just

heard her, everybody else does it, she'll do it. i will do it. i am going to release all of the transcripts of the speeches that i gave on wall street behind closed doors. not for $225,000, not for $2,000, not for two cents. there were no speeches. and second of all, of course we will release our taxes. jane does our taxes. we've been a little bit busy lately. you'll excuse us, but we will -- >> senator -- >> we will get them out. >> senator -- >> you know, there are a lot of copy machines around. senator, you've been asked for weeks and weeks to release tax returns. >> i think we have one coming out tomorrow. which one?

>> last year's. >> 2014? >> yes. i don't want to get anybody very excited. they are very boring tax returns. no big money from speeches, no major investments. unfortunately -- unfortunately i remain one of the poorer members of the united states senate. that's what that will show. >> so, senator, just to be clear, tomorrow you will release the 2014 tax returns from you and your family. >> yes. and what about the earlier ones? >> yes. what's the problem -- what's taking so long? you just have to go to the filing cabinet, make a copy and release them. >> wolf, the answer is, you know, what we have always done in my family, jane does them, and she's been out on the campaign trail. we will get them out very shortly. it's not a big deal.

>> thank you. senator, you have slammed companies like general electric and verizon for moving jobs outside of the united states. yesterday the ceo of verizon called your views contemptable and said in your home state vermont verizon has invested and paid millions to local businesses. he says you are uninformed and disconnected from reality. given your obvious contempt for large american corporations, hue would you as president be able to effectively promote american businesses around the world? >> well, for a start, i would tell the gentleman who is ceo at verizon to start negotiating with the communication workers of america. and this is -- this is a perfect example, wolf, of the kind of corporate greed which is destroying the middle class of this country. this gentleman makes $18 million a year in salary.

that's his compensation. this gentleman is now negotiating to take away health care benefits of verizon workers, outsource call center jobs to the philippines, and trying to create a situation where workers will lose their jobs. he is not investing in the way he should in inner cities in america. >> all right. senator, but the question was, given your contempt for large american corporations, as president how would you be able to promote american business around the world? >> first of all, the word contempt is not right. there are some great businesses who treat workers and the environment with respect. verizon happens to not be one of them. and what we need to do is to tell this guy immelt, the head of general electric, doesn't look like me? that's fine. he's outsourced hundreds of thousands of decent-paying jobs

throughout the world, cut his workforce here substantially, and in a given year, by the way, turns out that both verizon and general electric in a given year paid nothing in federal income tax despite making billions in profit. >> senator, experts say no matter the means to bring back these jobs to the united states, prices of goods for consumers in the united states would go up, which would disproportionately impact the poor and middle class. so how would you bring back these jobs to the united states without affecting the cost of goods to america's middle class and poor? >> for starters, we're going to raise the minimum wage to $15 an and number two, while we may pay

a few cents more for a hamburger at mcdonald's, at the end of the day what this economy desperately needs is to rebuild our manufacturing sector with good-paying jobs. we cannot continue to sustain the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs we have seen over the last 20, 30 years based on trade agreements, of which secretary clinton has voted for almost every one of those. that has got to change. >> thank you. secretary clinton? >> well, first of all, i do have a very comprehensive plan to create more jobs. i think that has to be at the center of our economic approach, and so i think it is important that we do more on manufacturing. i went to syracuse and laid out a $10 billion plan that would, i believe, really jump-start advanced manufacturing. i have seen the results of what can happen when we have the government cooperating with business. that's exactly what i will do. when i was secretary of state, i helped to lead the way to increase exports of american

goods around the world, which supports tens of thousands of jobs. so i think you've got to go at this with a sense of how to accomplish the goals we are setting. more good jobs with rising incomes for people everywhere from inner cities to rural areas to every distressed community in america. that's exactly what my plan would bring about. i think we have a pretty good record. if we look at what happened in the 1990s, we got 23 million new jobs and incomes went up for everybody. let's do that again in america. >> senator, stand by. i'll have you respond in a moment. i have to follow up with secretary clinton. you stood on the stage with governor cuomo in support of new legislation to raise new york's minimum wage to $15 an hour, but you do not support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. as president, if a democratic

congress put a $15 minimum wage bill on your desk, would you sign it? >> of course i would. i have supported the fight for 15. i'm proud to have the endorsement of most of the unions that have led the fight for 15. i was proud to stand on the stage with governor cuomo, with seiu and others who have been leading this battle, and i will work as hard as i can to raise the minimum wage. i always have. i supported that when i was in the senate. but what i have also said is we've got to be smart about it. just the way governor cuomo was here in new york. if you look at it, we moved more quickly to 15 in new york city, more deliberately toward 12, 12.50, upstate, then to 15. that is exactly my position of

it's a model for the nation. that's what i will do as president. go as quickly as possible to get to 15. >> thank you. >> i am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. >> no, wait a minute, wait a minute. >> that's just not accurate. >> i have stood on the debate stage. >> wolf -- >> i have stood on the stage with senator sanders eight different times. >> senator, please. >> if we can raise it to 15 in new york or los angeles. >> secretary, the viewers -- >> let's do it. >> if you're both screaming at each other, the viewers won't be able to hear either of you, so please don't talk over each other. >> i was just responding. go ahead. >> when this campaign began, i said we have to end this starvation minimum wage of 7.25 and raise it to 15. secretary clinton said let's raise it to 12. there's a difference. by the way, what has happened is history has outpaced secretary

clinton because all over this country people are standing up and they're saying 12 is not good enough, we need $15 an hour. >> okay. >> go ahead, secretary. secretary? >> suddenly -- >> now, thank you very much. >> to suddenly announce now that you're for 15, i don't think is quite accurate. >> all right. secretary? >> all right. i have said from the very beginning that i supported the fight for 15. i supported those on the front lines of the fight for -- it happens to be true. i always -- i supported the 15 effort in l.a. i supported it in seattle. i supported it for the fast-food workers in new york. the minimum wage at the national level right now is $7.25, right? we want to raise it higher than it ever has been, but we also have to recognize some states and some cities will go higher, and i support that. i have taken my cue from the

democrats in the senate, led by senator patty murray and others like my good friend kirsten gillibrand, who has said we will set a national level of 12, and then urge any place that can go above it to go above it. going from 7.25 to 12 is a huge difference. 35 million people will get a raise. one in four working mothers will get a raise. i want to get something done. i think setting the goal to get to 12 is the way to go, encouraging others to get to 15, but if we have a democratic congress, we will go to 15. >> senator, go ahead. >> i think the secretary has confused a lot of people. i don't know how you're there

for the fight for 15, when you say you want a $12 an hour national minimum wage. now, in fact there is an effort, patty murray has introduced legislation for $12 minimum wage. that's good. i introduced legislation for $15 an hour minimum wage, which is better. and ultimately what we have got to determine is after a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1/10 of 1%, when millions of people are working longer hours i think we have to be clear not equivocate, $15 an hour minimum wage in 50 states in this country as soon as possible. thank you. we're going to turn to another critically important issue, right now -- guns in america. secretary clinton, you've said that vermont, senator sanders' home state, has the highest per capita number of guns that end up committing crimes in new

york. but only 1.2% of the guns recovered in new york from 2014 were from vermont. are you seriously blaming vermont and implicitly senator sanders for new york's gun violence? >> no, of course not. of course not. this is a serious difference between us, and what i want to start by saying -- it's not a laughing matter -- 90 people on average a day are killed or commit suicide or die in accidents from guns. 33,000 people a year. i take it really seriously, because i have spent more time than i care to remember being with people who have lost their loved ones. so yes, we have a problem in america. we need a president who will stand up against the gun lobby. we need a president who will fight for common-sense gun safety reforms. and what we have here is a big difference. senator sanders voted against the brady bill five times. he voted for the most important

nra priority, namely giving immunity from liability to gun makers and dealers. something that is at the root of a lot of the problems that we are facing. then he doubled down on that in the "new york daily news" interview when asked to support the sandy hook parents suing to try to do something to rein in the advertising of the ar-15, which is advertised to young people as being a combat weapon, killing on the battlefield. he said they didn't deserve their day in court. i couldn't disagree more. finally, this is the only industry in america, the only one that has this kind of special protection. we hear a lot from senator sanders about the greed and recklessness of wall street, and i agree. we have to hold wall street accountable. >> thank you. >> what about the greed and recklessness of gun manufacturers and dealers in america?

>> well, the only problem is -- the only problem is, wolf, she didn't answer your question. you asked her whether she thought that vermont was responsible for a lot of the gun violence. you made the point what she had was totally absurd. >> i asked her, are you seriously blaming vermont and implicitly senator sanders for new york's gun violence. she said no. but go ahead. >> then why did she put out that statement? >> a statement that -- >> excuse me, i think i'm responding. >> please, go ahead. >> a statement that was refuted by the governor of the state of vermont who was a supporter of hers, who said, yeah, in campaigns people tend to exaggerate. here is the fact on guns. let's talk about guns. that horrible, horrible sandy hook -- what's the word we want to use, murder, assault,

slaughter, unspeakable act. back in 1988, i ran for the united states congress one seat in the state of vermont. i probably lost that election, which i lost by three points, because i was the only candidate running who said, you know what? we should ban assault weapons, not see them sold or distributed in the united states of america. i've got a d-minus voting record from the nra. and in fact -- and in fact, because i come from a state of which has virtually no gun control, i believe that i am the best qualified candidate to bring together that consensus that is desperately needed in this country. >> thank you, senator.

thank you. >> secretary clinton, i want you to respond to that, but why did you put out that statement blaming vermont and its gun policy for some of the deaths of -- by guns in new york? >> well, the facts are that most of the guns that end up committing crimes in new york come from out of state. they come from the states that don't have the kind of serious efforts to control guns that we do in new york. but let me say this -- in 1988, as we have heard on every debate occasion, senator sanders did run for the congress and he lost. he came back in 1990 and he won, and during that campaign he made a commitment to the nra that he would be against waiting periods. in fact, in his own book, he talks about his 1990 campaign, and here's what he said. he clearly was helped by the nra, because they ran ads against his opponent.

so then he went to the congress, where he has been a largely very reliable supporter of the nra. he kept his word. he voted against the brady bill five times, it had waiting periods in it. thankfully enough people finally voted for it to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. >> senator, i want you to respond, but i also want you to respond to this. you recently said you do not think crime victims should be able to sue gun makers for damages. the data of the sandy hook elementary school principal, who was killed back in the 2012 mass shooting, says you owe her and the other victims' families an apology. do you? >> what we need to do is to do everything that we can to make

certain that guns do not fall into the hands of people who do not have them. now, i voted against this gun liability law because i was concerned that in rural areas all over this country, if a gun shop owner sells a weapon legally to somebody and that person then goes out and kills somebody, i don't believe it is appropriate that that gun shop owner who just sold a legal weapon to be held accountable and be sued. but what i do believe is when gun shop owners and others knowingly are selling weapons to people who should not have them, somebody walks in, they want thousands of rounds of ammunition, or they want a whole lot of guns, yes, that gun shop owner or that gun manufacturer should be held liable. >> so, senator, do you owe the sandy hook families an apology? >> no, i don't think i owe them an apology. they are in court today, and actually they won a preliminary decision. they have the right to sue, and

i support them and anyone else who wants the right to sue. >> well, i believe that the law that senator sanders voted for that i voted against, giving this special protection to gun manufacturers and to dealers, is an absolute abdication of responsibility on the part of those who voted for it. this is a -- this is a unique gift given to only one industry in the world by the united states congress, as senator murphy from connecticut said, we have tougher standards holding toy gun manufacturers and sellers to account than we do for real guns. the point that senator sanders keeps making about how he wouldn't want a mom and pop store -- that was not the point of this. if he can point to any, any

incident where that happened, i would love to hear about it. what was really going on, new york city was on the brink of being able to hold manufacturers and dealers accountable through a very carefully crafted legal strategy. >> thank you. >> the nra came to their supporters in the congress and said, stop it, stop it now, and senator sanders joined those who did. >> senator sanders? >> just to reiterate, so there is no confusion, decades ago, before it was popular, in a rural state with no gun control, bernie sanders said let's ban assault weapons, not see them distributed in the united states of america. let's turn it over to errol louis, from time warner news.

>> the 1994 crime bill you supported added 100,000 police officers across the country and banned certain assault weapons. it also imposed tougher prison sentences and eliminated federal funding for inmate education. looking at the bill as a whole, do you believe it was a net positive or do you think it was a mistake? >> i think it had some positive aspects to it. you mentioned some of them. the violence against women act, which has been a very important piece of legislation in my opinion. and it also did some things which were to provide more opportunities for young people. so if we were to have the balance sheet on one side, there are some positive actions and changes. on the other side, there were decisions that were made that now we must revisit and we have to correct. i think that sentences got much too long. the original idea was not that we would increase sentences for

nonviolent low-level offenders, but once the federal government did what it did, the states piled on. so we have a problem. the very first speech i gave in this campaign is about what i will do to reform the criminal justice system and end the over-mass incarceration. so if we go and look back at where we were, senator sanders said there were good things, things we have to change and

learn from. that's how i see it. i think we ought to be putting our attention on forging a consensus, to make the changes that will divert more people from the criminal justice system to start. >> thank you, secretary. >> to divert people in the beginning. earlier this year south carolina voters told your daughter, chelsea, quote, i think a lot of african-americans want to hear we made a mistake chelsea said if the voter hadn't heard it then, quote, it's clearly insufficient, do you regret your advocacy for the crime bill? >> look, i supported the crime bill. my husband has apologized. he was the president who actually signed it, but -- >> but what about you? >> i'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives. i've seen the results of what has happened in families and in communities. that's why i chose to make my very first speech a year ago on this issue, errol. i want to focus the attention of our country and to make the

changes we need to make. i also ban people, especially i want -- i want white people -- i want white people to recognize that there is systemic racism. it's also in employment. it's in housing, but it is in the criminal justice system as well. >> senator sanders, earlier this week at the apollo theater in harlem, you called out secretary clinton for use of the term super predator. why did you call her out? >> because it was a racist term, and everybody knew it was a racist term. look, much of what secretary clinton said was right. we had a crime bill, i voted for it. it had the violence against women act in it.

when the mayor of burlington, we worked hard to eliminate domestic violence. this took us a good step forward. we were talking about the weapon that killed the children in sandy hook. there's banned assault weapons, but where we are today, is we have a broken criminal justice system. we have more people in jail than any other country on earth. in my view, what we have got to do is rethink the system from the bottom on up, and that means for a start -- we don't talk about this. the media doesn't talk about it. you've got 51% of african-american kids today who graduated high school who are unemployed or underemployed. you know what i think? maybe we invest in jobs and education for those kids, not jail and incarceration. i'll tell you what else. i'll tell you what else i think, and that is we have got -- and this is a difference between the secretary and myself as i understand it. we have got to have the guts to rethink the so-called war on drugs. >> thank you, senator. >> too many lives have been destroyed because people possess marijuana. millions over a 30-year period. that's why i believe we should take marijuana out of the federal controlled substance act. >> thank you.

thank you. let's get secretary clinton's response. >> look, i think that, as senator sanders said about what i said, i will say about what he said. we recognize that we have a set of problems that we cannot ignore and we must address. that is why i have been promoting for my entire adult life, i think, the idea of investing early in kids, early childhood education. universal pre-k like what mayor de blasio brought to new york. we have got to help more kids get off to a good start. that's why i want a good teacher in a good school for every child regardless of the zip code that child lives in. >> thank you, secretary. >> and really be focused on how we build ladders of opportunity and tear down these barriers that stand in the way. >> your time is up, secretary. senator sanders, i have a question.

you said by the end of your first term, the u.s. will no longer lead the world in mass incarceration. to fulfill that promise, you could have to release nearly half a million prisoners. how do you do that? >> we're going to work with state governments all over this country. in a very divided congress and very divided politics in america, actually the one area where there is some common ground is conservatives understand it's insane to be spending $80 billion a year locking up 2.2 million people. with presidential and federal leadership, we will work with state governments to make sure that people are released from jail under strong supervision, that they get the kind of job training and education they need so they can return to their communities. on this one, errol, actually i think you'll see progressive and conservative support. we can do it if we're prepared to be bold. thank you, senator. thank you, secretary. we have to take a quick

commercial break. we have a lot more questions for secretary clinton and senator sanders, right after this. ♪ ♪ (laughing) there's nothing like making their day. except making sure their tomorrow is taken care of too. financial guidance

while you're mastering life. from chase. so you can. while you're mastering life. ...one of many pieces in my i havlife.hma... so when my asthma symptoms kept coming back on my long-term control medicine. i talked to my doctor and found a missing piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. breo opens up airways to help improve breathing for a full 24 hours. breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death from asthma problems and may increase the risk of hospitalization in children and adolescents. breo is not for people whose asthma is well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop breo and prescribe a different asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. do not take breo more than prescribed. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ask your doctor if 24-hour breo could be a missing piece for you. see if you're eligible for

12 months free at mybreo.com. i am totally blind. i lost my sight in afghanistan. if you're totally blind, you may also be struggling with non-24. calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com. ( ♪ ) ♪ i'm walkin', yes indeed ♪ ♪ and i'm talkin' 'bout you and me ♪ ♪'m hopin' that you'll come back to me ♪

♪ yeah ♪ i'm lonely as i can be ♪ ♪ i'm waitin' for your company ♪ ♪ i'm hopin' that you'll come back to me ♪ ( ♪ ) not yet, i'm... folding the laundry! can you? no... cleaning the windows! the living room's a disaster! (vo) most insurance companies give you every reason to avoid them. plants need planting! well the leaves aren't going to rake themselves! (vo) nationwide is different. hon, did you call nationwide to check on our claim? (vo) we put members first. actually, they called me. ♪ nationwide is on your side nationwide is the exclusive insurance partner of plenti. hey, we're opening up and we need some new signage. but can't spend a lot. well, we have low prices and a price match guarantee. scout's honor? low prices. pinky swear? low prices. eskimo kisses? how about a handshake? oh, alright...

the lowest price. every time. staples. make more happen. welcome back. let's turn to another critically important issue, senator and secretary, the issue of energy and the environment. secretary clinton, senator sanders has said you are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. you say you're sick and tired of him lying about your record. what are his lies? >> well, let me start by saying we need to talk about this issue and we should talk about it in terms of the extraordinary threats that climate change pose to our country and our world,

and that's why for the last many years both in the senate and as secretary of state it's been a big part of my commitment to see what could be done. but there has never been any doubt that when i was a senator, i tried -- i joined with others to try to get rid of the subsidies for big oil and i have proposed that again because that's what i think needs to be done as we transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. and everyone who's looked at this independently, "the washington post" and others, who give us both hard times when called for on facts have said that this is absolutely an incorrect false charge. so we both have relatively small amounts of contributions from people who work for fossil fuel companies. best we can tell from the reports that are done. but that is not being supported by big oil, and i think it's

important to distinguish that. and let's talk about what each of us has proposed to try to combat greenhouse gas emissions and put us on the fastest track possible to clean energy. >> thank you. we're going to get to that, too, but i want you to respond. senator. >> it is one thing as the secretary indicated to talk about workers. i'm sure i have contributions, you have contributions from workers from every industry in the country. but as i understand it, 43 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry maxed out, gave the maximum amount of money to secretary clinton's campaign. now, that's not saying -- and then some people say, well, given the hundreds of millions of dollars she raised it's a small amount. that's true. but that does not mean to say that the lobbyist thought she was a pretty good bet on this issue.

now, what i think is when we look at climate change now, we have got to realize that this is a global environmental crisis of unprecedented urgency. and it is not good enough -- you know, if we god forbid were attacked tomorrow, the whole country would rise up and say we got an enemy out there, we got to do something about it. that was what 9/11 was about. we have an enemy out there, and that enemy is going to cause drought and floods and extreme weather disturbances. there's going to be international conflict. i am proud, wolf, that i have introduced the most comprehensive climate change legislation, including a tax on carbon, something i don't believe secretary clinton supports. >> secretary clinton, go ahead and respond. >> well, let's talk about the global environmental crisis. starting in 2009 as your secretary of state, i worked with president obama to bring china and india to the table for the very first time, to get a commitment out of them that they would begin to address their own

greenhouse gas emissions. i continued to work on that throughout the four years as secretary of state, and i was very proud that president obama and america led the way to the agreement that was finally reached in paris with 195 nations committing to take steps to actually make a difference in climate change. and i was surprised and disappointed when senator sanders attacked the agreement, said it was not enough, it didn't go far enough. you know, at some point putting together 195 countries, i know a little bit about that, was a major accomplishment and our president led the effort to protect our world and he deserves our appreciation, not our criticism. >> let's talk about that. when you were secretary of state, you also worked hard to expand fracking to countries all over the world.

but the issue here -- of course the agreement is a step forward, but you know agreements and i know agreements, there's a lot of paper there. we've got to get beyond paper right now. we have got to lead the world in transforming our energy system, not tomorrow but yesterday. and what that means, wolf, it means having the guts to take on the fossil fuel industry. now, i am on board legislation that says, you know what, we ain't going to excavate for fossil fuel on public land. that's not secretary clinton's position. let us support a tax on carbon, not secretary clinton's position. >> secretary, go ahead and respond. >> well, i'm a little bewildered about how to respond. when you have an agreement which gives you the framework to actually take the action that would have only come about because under the obama

administration in the face of implacable hostility from the republicans in congress, president obama moved forward on gas mileage, he moved forward on the clean power plant. he has moved forward on so many of the fronts that he could given the executive actions that he was able to take. and, you know, i am getting a little bit -- i'm getting a little bit concerned here because, you know, i really believe that the president has done an incredible job against great odds and deserves to be supported. now, it's easy -- it's easy to diagnose the problem. it's harder to do something about the problem. >> thank you, secretary. we'll continue on this. errol -- >> wolf, wolf! >> errol, go ahead. >> secretary clinton, as secretary of state you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. fracking is a way of extracting

natural gas. now as a candidate for president you say fracking will be restricted around the country. why have you changed your view on fracking? >> i don't think i've changed my view to go from where we are to where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil but principally coal to where we need to with clean energy and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas. for economic and strategic reasons it was american policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time. also to get out from under, especially if they were in europe, the pressure from russia, which has been incredibly intense. so we did say natural gas is a bridge. we want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible because in

order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can. that's why i've set big goals. want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide electricity to every home in america within ten years. so i have big, bold goals, but i know in order to get from where we are, where the world is still burning way too much coal, where the world is still too intimidated by countries and providers like russia, we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy. >> senator. >> here is -- here is a real difference. this is a difference between understanding that we have a crisis of historical consequence here and incrementalism and those little steps are not enough. not right now.

not on climate change. now, the truth is as secretary of state, secretary clinton actively supported fracking technology around the world. second of all, right now we have got to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet. and that means -- and i would ask you to respond. are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transit away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do? >> you know, i have laid out a set of actions that build on what president obama was able to accomplish, building on the

clean power plan, which is currently under attack by fossil fuels and the right in the supreme court, which is one of the reasons why we need to get the supreme court justice that president obama has nominated to be confirmed so that we can actually continue to make progress. i don't take a back seat to your legislation that you've introduced that you haven't been able to get passed. i want to do what we can do to actually make progress in dealing with the crisis. that's exactly what i have proposed. >> thank you, secretary clinton. >> and my approach i think is going to get us there faster without tying us up into political knots with a congress that still would not support what you are asking. >> senator sanders, you said that climate change is the greatest change to our nation's security. >> secretary clinton did not answer one simple question, are you for a tax on carbon or not? >> senator, i have a question for you. you said that climate change is the greatest threat to our

nation's security, you called for a nationwide ban on fracking and phasing out all nuclear power in the u.s. but wouldn't those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil and actually undermine your fight against global warming? >> no, they wouldn't. look, here's where we are. let me reiterate. we have a global crisis. pope francis reminded us that we are on a suicide course. our legislation understands, errol, that there will be economic dislocation, it is absolutely true, there will be some people who lose their job and we build into our legislation an enormous amount of money to protect those workers. it is not their fault that fossil fuels are destroying our climate. but we have got to stand up and say right now as we would if we were attacked by some military force, we have got to move urgency, urgently and boldly. what does that mean? >> senator, jobs are one thing